Where does it say that?
On the other hand, now that we will have a dem governor and a dem state Congress look for the gun laws in CT to change - drastically.
Therefore, absent a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the federal Constitution, McDonald means the end of state handgun bans.
And ....?
(Is there supposed to be a problem somewhere we're to take a guess at????) /s
Definitely Impeached. Who the HELL do they think they are, ruling in direct violation of the state constitution?
Liberals are out of their minds. An angry incompetent thinks he is being oppressed and shoots people. Liberals rush to control guns. A sane person would see that the problem is not guns but people whose “value system” allows them to shoot people out of an imagined feeling of discrimination.
Read the article (and it is just an article, not a court decision). The last sentence says:
“Therefore, absent a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court or an amendment to the federal Constitution, McDonald means the end of state handgun bans.”
The CT Constitutional clause mentioned here was poorly written. The “shall not be infringed” language intimates that NO laws should restrict the oringinal 2A, while the CT language allows for some regulations, like the handgun ban which DOES NOT infringe on the right to defend one’s self with some other weapon. State laws DO, however, infringe on the fundamental right to “keep and bear arms.” CT should amend their language.
To sum up, the CT constitution recognizes the right... “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”...but does not state that the right is inviolate. (shall not be infringed.)